U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which city is more powerful?
New York City 106 57.30%
London 79 42.70%
Voters: 185. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-26-2014, 11:01 PM
 
Location: In the heights
16,611 posts, read 18,907,874 times
Reputation: 8146

Advertisements

One thing to consider in rankings is how expansive an area the rankings are taking in for each city. A lot of rankings use metropolitan areas as described by the respective city's government, and the US often takes in a comparatively much broader area for its metros (the New York City MSA and especially the CSA divisions are massive) than other countries do. When it comes to trying to make an apples-to-apples comparison, European and Asian cities would often take in much larger areas if using a definition akin to that of what the US uses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-27-2014, 09:11 AM
 
27,502 posts, read 28,140,096 times
Reputation: 12390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacationmacation View Post
New York City because the United Nations headquarter is located, also because it is the largest city in the most powerful and wealthiest nation in the world. New York is called the capital city of the world. The world's largest finance and stock market is also here.

London is very powerful as well, but second to New York (pretty close though!)
Exactly what I think!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2014, 07:57 PM
 
Location: Great Lakes Region
5,699 posts, read 7,446,832 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
What a ridiculous thread. Both cities are too big and expensive to mean anything to the average person. Thus they attract scum like all those finance industry thugs. Really good cities are much smaller. And that is where good, intelligent people go.
Oh yes, because intelligent people don't go to New York City and London.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2014, 08:09 PM
 
Location: Toronto
11,118 posts, read 8,790,344 times
Reputation: 3228
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
One thing to consider in rankings is how expansive an area the rankings are taking in for each city. A lot of rankings use metropolitan areas as described by the respective city's government, and the US often takes in a comparatively much broader area for its metros (the New York City MSA and especially the CSA divisions are massive) than other countries do. When it comes to trying to make an apples-to-apples comparison, European and Asian cities would often take in much larger areas if using a definition akin to that of what the US uses.
Excellent point!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2014, 06:09 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
19,017 posts, read 16,778,707 times
Reputation: 7651
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
Oh yes, because intelligent people don't go to New York City and London.
Intelligent yes, but not "good intelligent" ones, which is what I said. Financial services for instance attract bad intelligent people and psychopaths like **** attracts flies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2014, 01:38 PM
 
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon
13,125 posts, read 14,438,802 times
Reputation: 23421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
What a ridiculous thread. Both cities are too big and expensive to mean anything to the average person. Thus they attract scum like all those finance industry thugs. Really good cities are much smaller. And that is where good, intelligent people go.
What an interesting angle on bigotry! I learn something new on city-data every day.

Two cities with a combined population in the tens of millions, devoid of any significant population combining the traits of goodness and intelligence.

I suppose those poor folks who died in 9/11 or the London bombings were no great loss considering they were either so unintelligent as to not comprehend the loss of their own lives much less their stupid families who registered little more than an extra sack of greasy fast food at an empty place at the dinner table, or otherwise they were evil incarnate, malevolent earthly demons set on ravaging the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2014, 01:50 PM
 
Location: Great Lakes Region
5,699 posts, read 7,446,832 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
Excellent point!
It'd be an excellent point if it were true, but it's not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
One thing to consider in rankings is how expansive an area the rankings are taking in for each city. A lot of rankings use metropolitan areas as described by the respective city's government, and the US often takes in a comparatively much broader area for its metros (the New York City MSA and especially the CSA divisions are massive) than other countries do. When it comes to trying to make an apples-to-apples comparison, European and Asian cities would often take in much larger areas if using a definition akin to that of what the US uses.
Wrong. The metropolitan area of London has more combined square miles than that of New York City. Even the city of London itself has more land than the city of New York.

New York City - 304.8 Square miles of land
New York City Metropolitan Area - 13,318 square miles

London - 606 miles
London Metropolitan Area - 13,614,409


As far as my finding for the most powerful city, I'm going to have to lean with New York City, and not just because I'm a biased American. Pretty well written article here.

What Is the World's Most Economically Powerful City? - The Atlantic
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2014, 01:59 PM
 
Location: In the heights
16,611 posts, read 18,907,874 times
Reputation: 8146
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
It'd be an excellent point if it were true, but it's not.



Wrong. The metropolitan area of London has more combined square miles than that of New York City. Even the city of London itself has more land than the city of New York.

New York City - 304.8 Square miles of land
New York City Metropolitan Area - 13,318 square miles

London - 606 miles
London Metropolitan Area - 13,614,409


As far as my finding for the most powerful city, I'm going to have to lean with New York City, and not just because I'm a biased American. Pretty well written article here.

What Is the World's Most Economically Powerful City? - The Atlantic
Wait. What are those stats?

I see a square miles for the New York City Metropolitan Area, but then I'm seeing what seems to be the actual population size for the London Metropolitan area. How does this square with each other?

And yea, London the city has more square miles of land (London is also half greenspace while NYC is about a quarter greenspace, so take that into account). I was trying to go for a MSA/CSA sort of comparison. NYC is definitely denser at its city core than London is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2014, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Great Lakes Region
5,699 posts, read 7,446,832 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Wait. What are those stats?

I see a square miles for the New York City Metropolitan Area, but then I'm seeing what seems to be the actual population size for the London Metropolitan area. How does this square with each other?

And yea, London the city has more square miles of land (London is also half greenspace while NYC is about a quarter greenspace, so take that into account). I was trying to go for a MSA/CSA sort of comparison. NYC is definitely denser at its city core than London is.
Apologies, I misread the numbers. London Metro is just over 3,000 square miles. However to echo a poster that I attempted to cut down earlier, only to be mistaken, London Metro is not as encompassing as New York Metro, since the UK uses a different set of rules. If the UK had something more akin to encompass an entire CSA of London, that may be of more use when comparing it against the vast NYC Metro.

Once again, my mistake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2014, 02:23 PM
 
Location: In the heights
16,611 posts, read 18,907,874 times
Reputation: 8146
Take the counties that include Greater London, all counties adjacent to Greater London, and all the counties adjacent to those (except for Wiltshire which would give the thing a really awkward shape rather than roughly spherical). Add the populations. Add the areas. That's 20,684,200 people in an area that is 12,601 square miles and linked closely by transit networks with London at the center.

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 11-28-2014 at 02:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:49 AM.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top